Athenian Drama - the results
127
Drama" post.
I had been recommended the "Nothing to do with Dionysus" book by my teacher.
I'm going to post the complete essay here so that you can comment (!) on it
or see what I ended up with. It's about 2000 words, which is twice as long
as it was meant to be.
before rubbishing it, plz bear in mind that I am only 16... :(
====================================
'What was the value of drama and the theatre to the Athenians and what is
its value now to the ancient historian?'
The issues examined in the theatre were central to Athenian society. Through
the theatre the citizens explored, confirmed and also question the meaning
of citizenship under Athens' radical government. The most famous issue
looked at is oikos/polis relations in Sophocles' Antigone, particularly
important in Athens, one of the few Greek poles to have any real concept of
individual rights. Other plays looked at gender relations (Agamemnon,
Lysistrata); some looked at the relations between the old and the new (The
Clouds); others looked at the relationships between gods and men; and others
were concerned with human dignity.
The nature of Athenian democracy meant that Athens was a dynamic and at
times volatile society. Anyone could take anyone else to court, anyone could
speak in the assembly and the citizens were free to believe what they
wanted. Inevitably in such a radical society there were strong tensions.
The dramatic festivals were a chance for the Athenians to release these
tensions in a mostly harmless setting. At the beginning of the festival a
wooden effigy of Dionysus was taken into the heart of the city and was then
installed in the front row of the theatre of Dionysus. This was accompanied
by boisterous celebrations (with Dionysus' gift - wine) which continued well
into the first day. The journey of Dionysus' effigy shows how the Athenians
perceived the dramatic festivals - as times of madness, excess, and release.
From his seat in the theatre Dionysus presided over this madness. He was the
a god of contrasts; he presided, among other things, over wine, drama,
hedonism, suffering and most importantly, ritualised madness. It was
"disorder within frame"
The "release" of tension in Comedy is immediately apparent, but there is
also significant evidence that the issues raised even in tragedy were
contemporary issues: Trojan Women followed the massacre at Melos, and
Oedipus Rex followed the plague at Athens and the death of Pericles.
In Tragedy Aristotle refers to this release as a "catharsis" ("cleansing").
To us one Greek tragedy can seem intense. The Athenians watched three
consecutive tragedies a day for three days running. This would have been
truly draining. One tragic writer, Theogenis, even earned the nickname of
"snow" because his plays were so chilling.
"Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and
of a certain magnitude. through pity and fear effecting the catharsis of
these emotions."
-Aristotle, Poetics (S H Butcher)
The effect of tragedy was strengthened by the use of heroes from Greece's
mythical past. In tragedy the Athenians saw their heroes, men usually with
divine ancestry and superhuman powers brought low. What is more, these
characters usually suffered not through any (conscious) fault of their own,
but through the cruel power of fate. In Oedipus Rex it is Oedipus' search
for the truth (i.e. a good action) that reveals the terrible truth to him.
The message of Greek drama is clear: if these great heroes can be brought
low through no fault of their own, so can the rest of us.
"What is experienced in such an excess of tragic suffering is something
truly common. The spectator recognises himself [or herself] and his [or her]
finiteness in the face of the power of fate. What happens to the great ones
of the earth has exemplary significance. . . .To see that "this is how it
is" is a kind of self-knowledge for the spectator, who emerges with new
insight from the illusions in which he [or she], like everyone else, lives."
(132)
-Hans-Georg Gadamer', Truth and Method
Tragedies were also meant to be humbling. No right answer is ever offered at
the end of a tragedy; the audience is left unsure whether there even is any
one right answer. Tragedy taught the audience not what was right and what
was wrong, but merely reminded them that the issues in question were
difficult if not impossible to solve. Indeed the tragic poets weren't
usually said to "write" their tragedies. The conventional word for what a
tragedian did was to "teach".
"Nor, again, should the downfall of the utter villain be exhibited. A plot
of this kind would, doubtless, satisfy the moral sense, but it would inspire
neither pity nor fear"
-Aristotle, Poetics
Unlike tragedy, which took place in a detached mythical world, comedy took
place in a world that was all too familiar to the Athenians. Aristophanes'
plays are filled with all kinds of vulgarity and obscenity. In these the
playwrights "taught" just like tragedians, except this time they were
teaching politics not virtue. The plays were a chance for playwrights to
give advice to the population of Athens in a more gentle way than in the
assembly.
Indeed there were strong parallels between the theatre and the assembly or
the law courts in Athens. Both began with sacrifices and ritual
purification; both took place with a consecrated area; playwrights took the
place of speakers; both ended with a vote; both encouraged audience
participation. Indeed the dramatic festivals were in many ways a junior
version of assembly meetings. The issues under discussion were no less
important and the competition was fierce.
But for the ordinary Athenian citizen, who, after all, made up the majority
of the audience and were usually the targets of the play (Aristophanes'
"Dikaiopolis" - just citizen), the plays were a fantasy. In comedy the hero
has a fantastic solution to a typical problem (war, debt etc.) and is able
to carry it through. The realistic setting and details of comedy
(flatulence, promiscuity, criminality) helped bring the action closer to the
ordinary Athenian. These fantasies were appropriate to the loss of
inhibitions and excess pleasure of Dionysus' festival.
Greek drama was also inextricably linked with Athenian democracy. The
theatrical competitions were at the heart of a festival celebrating Athenian
identity. First the ten generals, upon whom Athens' military might rested,
poured libations to the gods. Then the tributes to Athens paid by the
Athenian empire were carried into the orchestra and counted before the
audience - the very money which had been used to glorify Athens with
buildings such as the Parthenon. Finally the names of the public benefactors
were announced to the crowds. These men were often given special seats at
the front of the theatron.
The plays, as the centre piece of this festival extended this theme of
celebrating Athens. In tragedy the Greeks' mythic past was explored. These
myths were not only regarded as history by the Athenians; they were also the
basis of their moral and ethical understanding. What is more, the Athenians
watched these crucial myths repeatedly from different angles, and voted on
who told the story best or who "taught" the story best.
The malleable nature of Greek mythology meant that these myths could also be
shaped to justify and glorify the city. Theseus, for example, was gradually
turned into a national hero by the Athenians. Or in Oedipus at Colonus
Oedipus manages to become a protector of Athens.
The characters of myth were also imbued with all the fruits of the Athenian
intellectual world: rhetoric, understanding of human psychology and current
debates about the nature of the gods.
In comedy there is also a celebration of Athens. Although Aristophanes was
frequently critical of the excesses of democracy, the mere fact of
discussing or satirising what democracy meant was in itself a celebration of
democracy. Aristophanes always takes pains not to criticise the Athenians
themselves but the speakers who misled them. There can be no doubt that
Aristophanes loves his city. His plays show that he cares deeply for Athens;
his protagonists have often brought salvation to the city by the end of the
play.
"Oh Athens, Athens, what are you coming to?"
-Dikaiopolis, Acharnians
The final piece of evidence for the value of drama to the Athenians comes
from the Theoric fund. This was a fund set up under Pericles which gave
money to the poorest citizens to ensure that they could attend the theatre.
The fund was protected by law, and it was even a prosecutable offence to
propose changes to the fund. One prominent politician even called the
Theoric fund the "glue of democracy" From this we can see how much the
Athenians valued the theatre; to them it was an essential part of being an
Athenian, almost a civic duty like attending assembly meetings. This reminds
us of Pericles' famous statement that no Athenian should be barred by
poverty from playing his full part in democratic life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Drama was at the heart of Athenian society. A normal assembly meeting might
amount to a quarter of the Athenian citizenry, even when bolstered by the
introduction of pay for attendance. By contrast a dramatic performance at
the Great Dionysia might attract up to half of the Athenian citizenry. In
many ways the theatre was far more democratic than the assembly. Metics,
women and children could attend and could in a way speak publicly through
the actors. The number of active participants (as opposed to spectators)
numbered 1,200 . All the people were able to taken an active part in the
festival, usually by joining in the grand sacrifice and revelry. Unlike
speakers in the assembly, who were usually from a social elite, humble
actors in theatre could for a time be kings or gods.
The events of the theatre had a massive impact on the public consciousness
in Athens, quite unlike modern theatre. An Eastenders christmas special
would be a closer estimation to the importance of the theatre. Aristophanes
attack on Cleon in the play The Babylonians was considered so damaging that
Cleon sued Aristophanes. For this reason the Greek plays are an enormously
valuable resource: they were at the centre of Athenian civic life, and, what
is more, we know why the sources were written (to win, to make a political
point), and who the target audience was.
Another advantage of plays is that other primary sources are usually written
by the educated elite and so give a one-sided perspective of the world, and
usually discuss intellectual concepts. The theatre, particularly comedy, is
unique in showing us life for the ordinary Athenian citizen. No Greek
historian or philosopher would write about the mundane details of the rural
Dionysia or market-place trading like Aristophanes does in The Acharnians.
Although Greek drama does not show us the Greek world as it was, it cannot
help revealing facts about life in Athens. The events of drama, though
frequently exaggerated or distorted, do at least show us what was
conceivable to the Athenians.
The heroes of comedy are meant to represent the average Athenian citizen,
hence Aristophanes "Dikaiopolis" - the just citizen, the citizens to whom
Aristophanes was trying to appeal. Moreover, the comedians were competing to
win, and so would have inevitably have tried to sympathise with the ordinary
citizens in their plays. So the attitudes and prejudices of Dikaiopolis can
tell us a lot about what the average Athenian thought. In his opening
soliloquy in the Acharnians, for instance, Dikaiopolis mentions the
musicians and playwrights he likes, complains about the war and the Spartans
in Attica and then tots up his debts. This was undoubtedly exaggerated for
comic effect, but is definitely based on real problems.
The situation at the beginning of a comedy can be particularly useful.
Although comedies were essentially fantasies, they were usually based on a
realistic and topical predicament, e.g. war in The Acharnians, or social cha
nges in The Clouds. Likewise be can be sure that the situation at the end of
comedy is something that would please the average Athenian were it to happen
to him.
Comic playwrights were by necessity educated and rich. Therefore to a
certain extent we can see in their views the opinions of the rich in Athens,
although this is tempered by the need to please the audience and win first
prize. Competition, after all, was everything in Greece. Still, among
Aristophanes plays we can see a dislike for politicians like Cleon and other
demagogues whom participatory democracy encouraged. There is also general
nostalgia for former glories:
"Or else we never fought and beat,
The Medes at Marathon."
-Aristophanes, Acharnians
The world of tragedy is harder to penetrate. Nevertheless the topics of
tragedies reveal the most pressing immediate concerns. As well as the
immediate concerns about political events (page 1), we can also see the
underlying anxieties and prejudices of the Athenian citizens.
One of the most common of these is fear of women, or rather, what happened
when women were allowed to act without the restraining influence of men.
Numerous plays depict what happens when women yield to erotic urges or defy
male authority. No tragic woman ever commits her evil acts when the kyrios
is at home: Clytemnestra only yields to Aegisthus when Agamemnon has left
for troy; Helen is said to have submitted to Paris "when Menelaus was out of
town" . Women also often do wrong in the presence of other women, e.g.
Hermione blaming her behaviour on "foul-minded women".
Other obsessions include loss of status (i.e. corresponding to atimia) - as
in the plight of Oedipus or the fate of the Trojan women. Many of the plays
also show a great deal of racism: the Persians are the despots, the
Thracians are lawless, and the east represents effeminacy and cowardice.
Although the world of tragedy is where everything goes wrong, the
circumstances of tragedy show us an idealised world. In this world we can
see the Athenians ideal world order. There is, for instance, no such thing
as "new wealth" in tragedy. Nor are there any rowdy assembly meetings - the
word of the king is final. On the other hand, the flouting of male authority
by women in tragedy is quite unmatched in reality. This suggests to us that
the Athenians thought that misbehaviour by women was an inevitable part of
human life.
But one of the most unique vales of Greek drama is that it shows us how the
citizens perceived the non-citizens. In ordinary literature these
underclasses were not mentioned, yet in drama the citizens tried to give
them voices and imagine their point of view. In this sense the theatre was
more democratic than the assembly.
---
This mail is certified Virus Free AVG PE 6.0
www.avg.com
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.350 / Virus Database: 196 - Release Date: 17/04/02
Dave J
older. Congratulations!
A few comments, not specifically about your paper, but about your subject:
To me, the claim that tragedy represented the true otherwise unexpressed
fears of contemporary Greek males as to Greek females seems unsupported
by hard evidence. If one reviewed popular movies of the last few years,
one might believe that Americans are consumed by a fear of robots or
mutants attacking them to take over the world.
Donald Kagan's book has as a theme the dominant importance of the
conflict between oligarchic and democratic thought and adherents during
the Peloponnesian War. One has to stretch to find this topic in the
extant Greek tragedies.
Aristotle wrote long after the tragedies we read, and would know about
as much about how original audiences of those tragedies reacted as I
know about audience reactions to theatre during the American populist era.
In short, I am unconvinced that Greek tragedy gives us much insight into
Greek then-contemporary political and social life. I assume there is
some relation, but it may be so oddly distorted as to be unidentifiable
to modern analysts.
delroger
"Dave J" <davej{nospam}@lava.net> wrote in message
news:3F7646CA...@lava.net...
> 127: This is a remarkable paper for a sixteen year old, or for one much
> older. Congratulations!
>
> A few comments, not specifically about your paper, but about your subject:
>
> To me, the claim that tragedy represented the true otherwise unexpressed
> fears of contemporary Greek males as to Greek females seems unsupported
> by hard evidence. If one reviewed popular movies of the last few years,
> one might believe that Americans are consumed by a fear of robots or
> mutants attacking them to take over the world.
>
I do agree - it was an excellent paper, especially for a 16-year old.
Just one point about the fear of women. I know Aristotle was later than the
usual suspects of Greek drama as we think of it (Aeschylus, Euripides,
Aristophanes etc), but the following is still a very revealing statement
about women: "Permissiveness towards women is harmful to the purposes of the
community and to the happiness of the state ... for they live without
restraint in very kind of indulgence and luxury" (Aristotle, Politics 1269b
12-13).
I don't believe that Athenian men were actively *afraid* of women, but there
is certainly a representation of difference in Athenian drama.
As for Americans being afraid of robots and mutants, those kinds of films
represent a fear of 'aliens' (ie, the Other) - they are a distilled
exaggeration of the fear of possibilities. Likewise, I don't think that
Americans are afraid of Englishmen, yet it is convenient and common to find
an Englishman repesenting the 'baddie' in American films. It's just an
allegorical shortcut, not to be taken too literally.
Roger
Nick Geovanis
> Just one point about the fear of women. I know Aristotle was later than
> the usual suspects of Greek drama as we think of it (Aeschylus, Euripides,
> Aristophanes etc), but the following is still a very revealing statement
> about women: "Permissiveness towards women is harmful to the purposes of
> the community and to the happiness of the state ... for they live without
> restraint in very kind of indulgence and luxury" (Aristotle, Politics
> 1269b 12-13).
>
> I don't believe that Athenian men were actively *afraid* of women, but
> there is certainly a representation of difference in Athenian drama.
Since the essayist also comments on the relation of social class to the
drama, perhaps we should point-out that Aristotle's claim doesn't apply to
the women of the lower classes, regardless of citizenship status. The women
of the lower-classes did not "live without restraint in [every] kind of
indulgence and luxury". Instead, they labored. Of course the same was true
of the enslaved women who lived in Athens (as well as the lower-class and
enslaved men of Athens).
> As for Americans being afraid of robots and mutants, those kinds of films
> represent a fear of 'aliens' (ie, the Other) - they are a distilled
> exaggeration of the fear of possibilities.
I had always thought that it was a distilled exaggeration of the fear of
self-cleaning ovens and ice-makers :-)
> Roger
--
* Nick Geovanis
| IT Computing Svcs
| Northwestern Univ
| n-geovanis@
| northwestern.edu
+-------------------->
Robert Stonehouse
<r...@nospam.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>"Dave J" <davej{nospam}@lava.net> wrote in message
>news:3F7646CA...@lava.net...
>> 127: This is a remarkable paper for a sixteen year old, or for one much
>> older. Congratulations!
>>
>> A few comments, not specifically about your paper, but about your subject:
>>
>> To me, the claim that tragedy represented the true otherwise unexpressed
>> fears of contemporary Greek males as to Greek females seems unsupported
>> by hard evidence. If one reviewed popular movies of the last few years,
>> one might believe that Americans are consumed by a fear of robots or
>> mutants attacking them to take over the world.
>
>I do agree - it was an excellent paper, especially for a 16-year old.
>
>Just one point about the fear of women. I know Aristotle was later than the
>usual suspects of Greek drama as we think of it (Aeschylus, Euripides,
>Aristophanes etc), but the following is still a very revealing statement
>about women: "Permissiveness towards women is harmful to the purposes of the
>community and to the happiness of the state ... for they live without
>restraint in very kind of indulgence and luxury" (Aristotle, Politics 1269b
>12-13).
Umm. Quoted this way, it looks like a general Aristotelian comment on
tthe nature of women. In fact, it is part of Aristotle's criticism of
the constitution of Sparta and he is talking about the actual observed
behaviour of Spartan women. He says that the Spartan legislator
provided very strict rules for the behaviour of men, but said nothing
at all about women; as a result, the women run wild. He seems not to
make the point that the men were in barracks much of the time and the
women were left to their own devices, obvious as that may seem.
>
>I don't believe that Athenian men were actively *afraid* of women, but there
>is certainly a representation of difference in Athenian drama.
A chorus from Euripides' Medea used to be sung at suffragette meetings
- lines 410-445, though I don't know if they sang all of it.
Aeschylus' Clytemnestra is a strong character, much more so than
Homer's. Sophocles has Antigone. Aristophanes wrote Lysistrata and
Ecclesiazusae. Plato's Republic aims at full equality of the sexes,
though he may have missed some points a modern feminist would wish to
emphasise. This although the lives of Athenian women seem to have been
limited and restricting beyond what was usual in Greece. Certainly,
drama is aware of difference, but surely nobody can deny difference
(Vive..!).
delroger
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3f787737...@news.cityscape.co.uk...
> >Just one point about the fear of women. I know Aristotle was later than
the
> >usual suspects of Greek drama as we think of it (Aeschylus, Euripides,
> >Aristophanes etc), but the following is still a very revealing statement
> >about women: "Permissiveness towards women is harmful to the purposes of
the
> >community and to the happiness of the state ... for they live without
> >restraint in very kind of indulgence and luxury" (Aristotle, Politics
1269b
> >12-13).
>
> Umm. Quoted this way, it looks like a general Aristotelian comment on
> tthe nature of women. In fact, it is part of Aristotle's criticism of
> the constitution of Sparta and he is talking about the actual observed
> behaviour of Spartan women. He says that the Spartan legislator
> provided very strict rules for the behaviour of men, but said nothing
> at all about women; as a result, the women run wild. He seems not to
> make the point that the men were in barracks much of the time and the
> women were left to their own devices, obvious as that may seem.
Despite the context, I think it *is* a general Aristotelian comment on the
nature of women: women, unless controlled, do not exhibit the same restraint
as men. I'm not sure that the circumstances make much difference.
At the risk of selective quotation again, "Slaves and women are not likely
to plot against tyrants: indeed ... they prosper under them" (Politics
1313b).
There you have women being unequivocally equated with slaves and assigned
similar motivations (selfishness, lack of concern for the state as a whole).
Again, the context (discussion of tyranny) doesn't make much difference - it
is still a generic statement by Aristotle that women do not share the same
ethical standards as male citizens. Of course, you might argue that slaves
and women, being powerless, were in no position to plot against anyone - but
that is not what Aristotle suggests at all. He states clear motivations:
under a tyrant, women are encouraged to inform on their husbands, and slaves
to betray their masters; hence they prosper.
> A chorus from Euripides' Medea used to be sung at suffragette meetings
> - lines 410-445, though I don't know if they sang all of it.
> Aeschylus' Clytemnestra is a strong character, much more so than
> Homer's. Sophocles has Antigone. Aristophanes wrote Lysistrata and
> Ecclesiazusae. Plato's Republic aims at full equality of the sexes,
> though he may have missed some points a modern feminist would wish to
> emphasise. This although the lives of Athenian women seem to have been
> limited and restricting beyond what was usual in Greece. Certainly,
> drama is aware of difference, but surely nobody can deny difference
> (Vive..!).
Absolutely. But generally speaking, the difference is a negative impression,
and the exceptions (for the most part) prove the rule. Aeschylus's
Clytemnestra is "a strong character", sure - but that hardly makes her a
sympathetic one! She lies, she murders, she's an adulterer - I don't think
you could argue that she is in any way a positive role model for Athenian
women. As for Aristophanes, even allowing for comic effect, the portrayal of
women is a mixed message - they might organise a sex strike, but they are
still shown as being unable to control themselves when it comes to sex and
drink. Even Medea, who is a more sympathetic character entirely in
Euripides' account (mainly because of the portrayal of Jason), still comes
across as a slightly deranged, foreign witch (not to put too fine a point on
it...!).
I'm not saying that male characters are wholly positive portrayals in Greek
drama either - but there are very few noticeably strong women, and few of
these are shown acting in accordance with Athenian laws and customs.
To reiterate, I don't think that Athenian men were afraid of women, but I do
think they feared not being in control of them.
Alan Hogue
Englishmen are used as villains in American movies because English
accents are popularly thought here to be a mark of intelligence, which
makes the bad guy more menacing. Interesting that a Frenchman was used
in the latest Matrix movie.
"Fear of possibilities" is ridiculously vague.
Alan H.
Alan Hogue
>delroger wrote:
>
>
> I had always thought that it was a distilled exaggeration of the fear of
>
>self-cleaning ovens and ice-makers :-)
>
Bah! It's a distilled fear of linearity, I say.
Alan H.
Robert Stonehouse
I can only simply, flatly disagree. Aristotle's subject is not women,
but the constitution of Sparta. This circumstance makes all the
difference.
>At the risk of selective quotation again, "Slaves and women are not likely
>to plot against tyrants: indeed ... they prosper under them" (Politics
>1313b).
>
>There you have women being unequivocally equated with slaves and assigned
>similar motivations (selfishness, lack of concern for the state as a whole).
They are not equated in general - it just happens that in this case
(tyranny) they have similar interests. This time the subject is what a
tyrant (that is, a ruler without legal legitimacy, like Macchiavelli's
Prince) does to maintain his power. Women and slaves are underclasses
in Greek society, and so they are suitable material for a Prince to
use to maintain his power against those who would take over power if
he disappeared.
>Again, the context (discussion of tyranny) doesn't make much difference - it
>is still a generic statement by Aristotle that women do not share the same
>ethical standards as male citizens.
I deny this. Discussion of tyranny is the main point.
>Of course, you might argue that slaves
>and women, being powerless, were in no position to plot against anyone - but
>that is not what Aristotle suggests at all. He states clear motivations:
>under a tyrant, women are encouraged to inform on their husbands, and slaves
>to betray their masters; hence they prosper.
>
>> A chorus from Euripides' Medea used to be sung at suffragette meetings
>> - lines 410-445, though I don't know if they sang all of it.
>> Aeschylus' Clytemnestra is a strong character, much more so than
>> Homer's. Sophocles has Antigone. Aristophanes wrote Lysistrata and
>> Ecclesiazusae. Plato's Republic aims at full equality of the sexes,
>> though he may have missed some points a modern feminist would wish to
>> emphasise. This although the lives of Athenian women seem to have been
>> limited and restricting beyond what was usual in Greece. Certainly,
>> drama is aware of difference, but surely nobody can deny difference
>> (Vive..!).
>
>Absolutely. But generally speaking, the difference is a negative impression,
>and the exceptions (for the most part) prove the rule. Aeschylus's
>Clytemnestra is "a strong character", sure - but that hardly makes her a
>sympathetic one! She lies, she murders, she's an adulterer - I don't think
>you could argue that she is in any way a positive role model for Athenian
>women.
No, but she cannot be ignored. Women are real people, they are not
negligible.
>As for Aristophanes, even allowing for comic effect, the portrayal of
>women is a mixed message - they might organise a sex strike, but they are
>still shown as being unable to control themselves when it comes to sex and
>drink.
Just like men? Self-control is not a feature of either sex in these
plays. The women come off best, surely.
>Even Medea, who is a more sympathetic character entirely in
>Euripides' account (mainly because of the portrayal of Jason), still comes
>across as a slightly deranged, foreign witch (not to put too fine a point on
>it...!).
Like Dido, or Cleopatra. But this is the heroic age: the men too have
virtues and vices of heroic stature.
>
>I'm not saying that male characters are wholly positive portrayals in Greek
>drama either - but there are very few noticeably strong women, and few of
>these are shown acting in accordance with Athenian laws and customs.
Theseus mostly comes off unscathed, but he is peripheral to the
dramatic action. Apart from him, how many men come across as strong in
all respects? (Heracles is strong, but not in all respects.) If they
did, would there be a drama?
>
>To reiterate, I don't think that Athenian men were afraid of women, but I do
>think they feared not being in control of them.
Just like now? Is there really a difference?
delroger
"Alan Hogue" <aho...@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
news:blcbua$2131$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >
> >As for Americans being afraid of robots and mutants, those kinds of films
> >represent a fear of 'aliens' (ie, the Other) - they are a distilled
> >exaggeration of the fear of possibilities. Likewise, I don't think that
> >Americans are afraid of Englishmen, yet it is convenient and common to
find
> >an Englishman repesenting the 'baddie' in American films. It's just an
> >allegorical shortcut, not to be taken too literally.
> >
>
> Englishmen are used as villains in American movies because English
> accents are popularly thought here to be a mark of intelligence, which
> makes the bad guy more menacing. Interesting that a Frenchman was used
> in the latest Matrix movie.
>
> "Fear of possibilities" is ridiculously vague.
>
Hey, I didn't realise I was doing an end of term paper! ;-)
I thought the context explained what I meant ... fear of the Other.
Anyway, I think the Matrix films are a perfect example - the bad guy isn't
so much the Frenchman, it's the computer system (like the Terminator films
too). It's a 'worst case scenario' fear of what computers might be capable
of: it expresses the ambivalence we feel towards technology (self-cleaning
ovens again ...?).
As for Englishmen being used as villains, I think it's more than simply
signifiying a 'mark of intelligence' (though I think you're right about that
aspect too). It's convenient for an American film-maker to use English
actors because they are understood by the audience (they speak the right
language) but they appear as different (the Other) because of their
distinctive accent - like I said, it's an easy allegorical shortcut to make.
Since this is getting way off topic, I'd better leave it there.
Cheers,
Roger
Alan Hogue
I heartily agree that fear of the other is "an easy allegorical shortcut
to make", and to that degree it's not very useful. Or maybe it's the
other way around. Maybe that's precisely what makes it useful. :)
Alan H.